DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

국내 보건학 분야 학술활동의 군집화와 '두 문화' 현상 - 보건행정학회지(1991~2006) 게재논문의 공저자 네트워크 분석 -

Co-author.Keyword Network and its Two Culture Appearance in Health Policy Fields in Korea: Analysis of articles in the Korean Journal of Health Policy and Administration, 1991~2006

  • 정민수 (서울대학교 보건대학원) ;
  • 정동준 (위스컨신대학교 통계학과)
  • Jung, Min-Soo (Dept. of Medical Sociology, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Chung, Dong-Jun (Dept. of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
  • 발행 : 2008.06.30

초록

This research analyzed. knowledge structure and its effect factor by analysis of co-author and keyword network in Korea's health policy and administration sector. The data was extracted from 339 articles listed in the Korean Journal of Health Policy and Administration, and was transformed into a co-author and keyword matrix. In this matrix the existence of a link was defined by impact factors which were calculated by the weight value of what the role was and the rate of how many authors contributed. We demonstrated that the research achievement was dependent on the author's status and network index. Analysis methods were neighborhood degree, correspondence analysis, multiple regression and the difference of weight distribution by research fields. Co-author networks were developed as closeness centrality as well as degree centrality by a few high productivity researchers. In particular, power law distribution was discovered in impact factor and research productivity. The effect of the author's role was significant in both the impact factor calculated by the participatory rate and the number of listed articles. Especially, this journal shared its major researchers who had a licensed physician with the Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health. Therefore, social scientists were likely to be small co-author network differently from natural scientists. It was so called 'two cultures' phenomenon. This study showed how can we verified academic research structure existed in the unit of journal like as citation networks. The co-author networks in the field of health policy and administration had more differentiated and clustered than preventive medicine and epidemiology fields.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강민구. 한국의 물리학과 사회학의 인용패턴 비교 연구: 전임 여부와 박사학위 취득지역을 중심으로. 과학기술학연구 2004; 4(2): 67-101
  2. 이재윤. 계량서지적 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 척도에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지 2006; 40(3): 191-214
  3. 이희재. 과학기술분야 구조화에 대한 연구: SCIE 학술지 공저자, 인용, 핵심어 연결망 분석. 연세대학교 대학원 사회학과 석사학위논문; 2003, p.99-106
  4. 정민수, 정동준. 국내 예방의학 분야의 공저자.핵심어 네트워크와 군집 양상. 예방의학회지 2008; 41(1): 1-9 https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2008.41.1.1
  5. Barabasi AL. Linked: the new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus; 2002
  6. Barnes B, Bloor D, Henry J. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London: Athlone; 1996
  7. Bremholm TL. Author productivity and citation frequency in the proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 1921-2000. Proc Okla Acad Sci 2004; 84: 53-66
  8. Buchanan M. Nexus: small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks. NY: W.W.Norton&Company; 2002
  9. Callon M, Latour B. Unscrewing the big leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociology help them to do so. In Knorr-Cetina, Cicouvel A. Eds. Advances in social theory and methodology: towards an integration of micro and macro-sociology. London: Routledge; 1981
  10. Cole J, Cole S. Social stratification in science. Chicago:University of Chicago Press; 1973, p.33
  11. Collins R. Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. NY: Academic Press; 1975
  12. Erdos P, Rényi A. On the strength of connectedness of a random graph. Acta Math Acad Sci Hung 1961; 12: 261-267 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02066689
  13. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972; 178: 471-479 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471
  14. Garfield E. Of nobel class: a citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theor Med 1992; 13(2): 117-135 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02163625
  15. Glanzel W. Coauthorship patterns and trends in the Sciences (1980-1998): a bibliometric study with implications of database indexing and search strategies. Libr Trends 2002; 50(3): 461-473
  16. Li M, Fan Y, Chen J, Gao L, Di Z, Wu J. Weighted networks of scientific communication: the measurement and topological role of weight. Physica A 2005; 350: 643-656 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2004.11.039
  17. Lindsey D. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: the problem of multiple authorship. Soc Stud Sci 1980; 10(2): 145-162 https://doi.org/10.1177/030631278001000202
  18. Lotka AJ. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Wash Acad Sci 1926; 16(12): 317-323
  19. Merton RK. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973
  20. Murray JD. Mathematical biology, v.1. NY: Springer; 2002, pp.315-393
  21. Narin F, Moll JK. Bibliometrics. Ann Rev Inform Sci Tech 1977; 12: 35-58
  22. Newman MEJ. Scientific collaboration networks: I. network construction and fundamental result. Phys Rev E 2001; 64: 131
  23. Price DJ. Little science, big science ...and beyond. NY: Columbia University Press; 1986
  24. Snow CP. The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1959
  25. Storer NW. The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1967; 55: 75-84
  26. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994, pp.167-214
  27. Whitley R. The Intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Calrendon Press; 1984
  28. Zipf GK. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: an Introduction to human ecology. 2nd ed. NY: Hafner Pub. Co.; 1965